Is there any cause that would NOT be permitted to tap into this loophole’s power? Previous attempts to do mandates characterized them as taxes. Now we’re presuming to mandate sales. Would economic impossibility of sustaining such a system be a sufficient excuse for failure to do that?
Maybe it’s time for a con-con, or to schedule it the next time there is a Republican majority in Washington. Before the chicken littles screech, it’s well to note that a con-con couldn’t get anything added to the constitution without the nod of 38 states, no matter what garbage gets proposed and put on the table. No liberal wet dream will get by all of 38 states however chosen. Some conservative restrictions of Federal government power might.
This would mean that Congress has the power to compel you to buy a computer, a car, a house or anything else and fine or jail you if you fail to do so.
Ludicrous.
If this is upheld then there should be open revolt.
A Con-Con can give us the Communist Manifesto.
A simple amendment would be better.
Congress shall make no law governing the private economic actions of individuals.
or something like that.
The judge, Silberman, assumed there is no difference between regulating commerce (ongoing activity) and forcing behavior. This is idiotic, but it is even more idiotic not to read the section of the Constitution in which this regulation of commerce appears. Note that "foreign nations" appears in the list PRIOR TO "the several states". In other words, any definition of "commerce" that applies to the second cannot also apply to the first, foreign nations.
Who among us is willing to read the Constitution to say that "Congress can 'force' foreign nations to buy things against their own will?" That is why this is an idiotic conversation. There is no way to get there short of conquering those nations. Does this mean the "commerce clause" enjoins the U.S. to conquer the world?
Besides, back to the ignorant of the Constitution discussion at hand, if I want to regulate football, then I have to have football in order to regulate it.
The notion that I can force people to go play football is NOT assumed in the authority to regulate the football that does exist.
Silbermann doesn't understand the implication of existence that is assumed in the words "commerce" and "regulate." He doesn't speak as if he's even read the line in which "commerce" and "foreign nations" is mentioned.
Furthermore, if this passage means as suggested, then Congress' power of "regulation of the land and naval forces" means that we all can be called an army and be regulated in a military fashion by the Congress.
Like a Sidney Poitier/Tony Curtis flick. Yes! I'll bring the popcorn.